Ruminations on the craft
-
It may not be the most ideal example, but it was the best example I could think of.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
Structural engineering needs the same level of artistry at the top levels, but is close enough to what we think we understand to believe it's "just" the boring application of simple principles, just as coding is. Its worth looking at [1] R. E. Bohn, “Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge,” in The Economic Impact of Knowledge, Elsevier, 1998, pp. 295–314. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7506-7009-8.50022-7. Also in HBR and at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237010832_Measuring_and_Managing_Technological_Knowledge[^] The paper notes how we have a fading level of understanding as we go further away from our own field of understanding. Forth Bridge; Golden Gate; Sydney Opera House ;-)
-
I think you are conflating "hacks," and "clever solutions "with "art." Someone at a high-level of competency with the tools and materials in a certain domain can experience aesthetic qualities when they look at something built using those tools and materials.
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
A far more concise and cogent reply than I could muster first thing in the morning, Bill. Thank you.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
A far more concise and cogent reply than I could muster first thing in the morning, Bill. Thank you.
Software Zen:
delete this;Hi, Gary,
Gary Wheeler wrote:
first thing in the morning
Well, I am probably 11 hours ahead of you :) (GMT + 7).
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
-
Hi, Gary,
Gary Wheeler wrote:
first thing in the morning
Well, I am probably 11 hours ahead of you :) (GMT + 7).
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
Yes, plus I don't operate well under caffeine deficit. :-D
Software Zen:
delete this; -
When I have to look at their source code, I strongly curse the artists and enjoy the solid, boring coders.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?" -- Rigoletto
Spot on! I absolutely respect all those who bring artistry to their craft, but I have also lived through several projects where the "artistry" was applied with zero regard for timelines, TCO, budget, maintainability, or what the client actually asked for. Some of the artistry, IMHO, comes in knowing when boring and predictable makes more sense.
-
I think any creative process can rise to the level of art when you can't teach someone how to be great at it. I think you can teach any structural engineer how to be a great structural engineer, IMO. If you have the skillset, experience will carry you to greatness. I do not think you can teach any engineer to be a great software developer. The skillset alone isn't enough to foment greatness. Software development in some respects is like cooking, acting, painting, or dancing rather than like blueprinting. Some people just have a knack, but most people will always plateau after a point because raw skillset only carries you so far, no matter how well you know C++ for example. It doesn't mean that most coders can't code. they will just never be what I consider great. You have to have some artist in you, I think. I don't say that to discourage anyone. I routinely code with someone who will never be an artist at the craft, but it's not to say he's not intelligent, or capable. There's nothing wrong with the code he produces. It's a solid average, and easy to understand, so it has that going for it. I can work with that. Very utilitarian. But then there's great code. Code that makes you go "wow, I wish I would have thought of that" He's not going to produce that code, and that's okay. But there's an art to doing so.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I propose that it is only your unfamiliarity with structural engineering that makes you feel that anyone can be great at it. It takes a very skilled eye to recognize really excellent software development only by running the completed program, and probably an equally skilled eye to distinguish one curtain-wall tower from another just by walking past it. You notice bad structural engineering when something falls down or blows up, which may take a human lifetime. You notice the quality of structural engineering when actually building the structure, when you either do or do not have to improvise patches to weaknesses in the design. I'm not sure anyone but a builder can recognize really marvelous structural engineering.
-
I propose that it is only your unfamiliarity with structural engineering that makes you feel that anyone can be great at it. It takes a very skilled eye to recognize really excellent software development only by running the completed program, and probably an equally skilled eye to distinguish one curtain-wall tower from another just by walking past it. You notice bad structural engineering when something falls down or blows up, which may take a human lifetime. You notice the quality of structural engineering when actually building the structure, when you either do or do not have to improvise patches to weaknesses in the design. I'm not sure anyone but a builder can recognize really marvelous structural engineering.
Probably.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
I think any creative process can rise to the level of art when you can't teach someone how to be great at it. I think you can teach any structural engineer how to be a great structural engineer, IMO. If you have the skillset, experience will carry you to greatness. I do not think you can teach any engineer to be a great software developer. The skillset alone isn't enough to foment greatness. Software development in some respects is like cooking, acting, painting, or dancing rather than like blueprinting. Some people just have a knack, but most people will always plateau after a point because raw skillset only carries you so far, no matter how well you know C++ for example. It doesn't mean that most coders can't code. they will just never be what I consider great. You have to have some artist in you, I think. I don't say that to discourage anyone. I routinely code with someone who will never be an artist at the craft, but it's not to say he's not intelligent, or capable. There's nothing wrong with the code he produces. It's a solid average, and easy to understand, so it has that going for it. I can work with that. Very utilitarian. But then there's great code. Code that makes you go "wow, I wish I would have thought of that" He's not going to produce that code, and that's okay. But there's an art to doing so.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
I think you are conflating "hacks," and "clever solutions "with "art." Someone at a high-level of competency with the tools and materials in a certain domain can experience aesthetic qualities when they look at something built using those tools and materials.
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
-
I think you make a good point. I thought he might be saying the same thing Einstein said: :-D
Einstein: (full quote here[^])
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
What a wonderful quote ! my favorite Einstein quote: “A human being is part of a whole, called by us the 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest ... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
-
I think any creative process can rise to the level of art when you can't teach someone how to be great at it. I think you can teach any structural engineer how to be a great structural engineer, IMO. If you have the skillset, experience will carry you to greatness. I do not think you can teach any engineer to be a great software developer. The skillset alone isn't enough to foment greatness. Software development in some respects is like cooking, acting, painting, or dancing rather than like blueprinting. Some people just have a knack, but most people will always plateau after a point because raw skillset only carries you so far, no matter how well you know C++ for example. It doesn't mean that most coders can't code. they will just never be what I consider great. You have to have some artist in you, I think. I don't say that to discourage anyone. I routinely code with someone who will never be an artist at the craft, but it's not to say he's not intelligent, or capable. There's nothing wrong with the code he produces. It's a solid average, and easy to understand, so it has that going for it. I can work with that. Very utilitarian. But then there's great code. Code that makes you go "wow, I wish I would have thought of that" He's not going to produce that code, and that's okay. But there's an art to doing so.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I love the way you expressed this. Yes, there's a search for elegance and beauty in low level coding that is second only to the search for the most elegant of mathematical proofs. Engineers can find it, they need a certain attachment to symbolic meandering, but also there's that quality that is the cherry on top for being a genius, the inner poet. Such a level of creativity ultimately caters to the performance boost and efficiency of ever lesser waste of clock cycles, but it also delights learned individuals. We should all take a page from The Story of Mel [^].
-
I think any creative process can rise to the level of art when you can't teach someone how to be great at it. I think you can teach any structural engineer how to be a great structural engineer, IMO. If you have the skillset, experience will carry you to greatness. I do not think you can teach any engineer to be a great software developer. The skillset alone isn't enough to foment greatness. Software development in some respects is like cooking, acting, painting, or dancing rather than like blueprinting. Some people just have a knack, but most people will always plateau after a point because raw skillset only carries you so far, no matter how well you know C++ for example. It doesn't mean that most coders can't code. they will just never be what I consider great. You have to have some artist in you, I think. I don't say that to discourage anyone. I routinely code with someone who will never be an artist at the craft, but it's not to say he's not intelligent, or capable. There's nothing wrong with the code he produces. It's a solid average, and easy to understand, so it has that going for it. I can work with that. Very utilitarian. But then there's great code. Code that makes you go "wow, I wish I would have thought of that" He's not going to produce that code, and that's okay. But there's an art to doing so.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I consider myself an excellent SQL coder. At least I used to be. But I owe all but the basics to a person I've never met. A true master. I inherited his code when he left the job. His code taught me things I never would have seen in or out of a classroom. I'm certain he was younger than me, based on the descriptions others gave of him. I thank my lucky stars I got that lesson. I'm not sure we can assess our own top level without seeing something and wishing we had written it. Or perhaps even then. Then there's the Dunning–Kruger effect. And the sciolists of the world. Who among us hasn't seen those? Yet I think the person experiencing it doesn't know it. When I was a kid, someone stuck me in a choir. After a bit of time the choir director told me not to sing the words but to just move my lips. A monotone. Yet now I sing well, according to others. Probably I just had to grow into my voice. But I never pursued music after that. The last is just food for thought. Good subject for rumination.